(Opinion) Coalition government cabinet reshuffle: why is George Osborne still in office?

While the world is full of things that are beyond comprehension, George Osborne remaining as Chancellor of the Exchequer after the cabinet reshuffle has just joined the ranks. In the government’s recent cabinet reshuffle there has been some strange and expected changes such as the demotion of Ken Clarke (expected) and promotion of Jeremy Hunt to health secretary (strange) but why Prime Minster David Cameron has not thrown George Osborne a break and move him to a position closer to the PM office is very strange given the calls across the political spectrum to bench him or move him out of the treasury.

Perhaps it is because he believes in the programme currently in place at the treasury as he hasn’t failed to move out minsters who don’t agree him on key issues such as Kenneth Clarke and Justine Greening (the latter of which has sparked a major rift within the conservative party[1]) or ministers who have performed poorly such as Andrew Lansley. The fact that George Osborne remains in office reveals not only move to the right in the cabinet[2]   but a preference for loyalty over performance.

While George Osborne did not inherit an economy in great shape, his implementation of trademark conservative policies has done him and the coalition government in general no favours. George Osborne budgets have made large cuts in taxes, housing and education while presiding over Britain’s continuous slide into a double dip recession. However his performance is really the problem so much as his unpopularity with only 34% of the British thinks George Osborne is “doing a good job”[3].

The lack of change in the cabinet reshuffle, at least in positions that are key to the implementation of conservative policies, represents an assertion of a prime minster determined to get rid of the well earned tag of being government of that has only mastered the art of the u-turn. However as a result of this, the government’s main opposition to this assertion in policy will be the conservatives as the government is already receiving criticism for its changes in the cabinet. London Mayor Boris Johnson was quick to denounce the removal of Justine greening from the position of transport secretary due to her opposition to the addition of a third runway at Heathrow describing her as a “first rate Transport Secretary”[4].

In sum, David Cameron may be a conservative prime minster but has revealed his allegiance to his allies amenable to favoured policies rather to efficient and effective governance. While no one in politics expects a politician not to turn to his cronies in a time of need, for it to be done so openly for all to see is what gives reason for criticism. Geroge Osborne is a prime example of this criticism as he has performed poorly and is highly unpopular yet manages to stay in the cabinet despite his strengths is in political rather than economic strategy.   

---

[1] H. Siddique, 2012, Heathrow runway row: Cameron flies into storm of Tory criticism, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/05/heathrow-runway-row-cameron-tory

[2] P. Wintour and N. Watt, 2012,  David Cameron’s right turn in cabinet reshuffle, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/04/david-cameron-government-reshuffle-cabinet?intcmp=239

[3] P. Kellner, 2012,Budget hurts Tories but doesn’t help Labour,

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/03/23/budget-hurts-tories-doesnt-help-labour/

[4] Quoted by P. Wintour and N. Watts, 2012, David Cameron’s right turn in cabinet reshuffle, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/04/david-cameron-government-reshuffle-cabinet?intcmp=239

(Opinion) G4S Security: When you Can’t Catch A Break in a snooker hall

Every once in a while a company goes through a difficult period and is confronted with headline after headline detailing it weaknesses and past screw ups but G4S is a company that couldn’t buy a break in a snooker hall.  However, it is more than fair to say that it has earned critical media scrutiny as reports detailed G4S lax attitude to recruitment and general incompetence before, during, and after the Olympics.

The main reason why G4S failure is big news is not because of the extent of how much G4S was unprepared for the games, but it has been a major loss for the coalition government plan to outsource parts of the public sector, especially the police. The Labour Party was quick to attack in light of G4S lack of preparation with Labour leader Ed Miliband linking the company’s failures to the coalition government plans for the public sector[1]. Miliband cited the pace of outsourcing of the police and the need   “for a rethink of the role of the private sector in policing”[2].

This could prove to be an effective strategy for labour as the coalition government (the conservatives in particular) have made enemies out of the police, traditionally a natural ally of the Tories due to their tough stance on crime.

The Tories have done their best to alienate the police with a regime of spending and pay cuts to the point where Home Secretary Theresa May was subject to “heckling and jeering” when she spoke at the Police Federation Conference earlier this year[3]. Greeted with absolute silence the year before, the home secretary and her government were subject to criticism from all angles as the police federation chairman Paul McKeever revealed warning the home secretary of ‘public disorder’ and illustrated his point  with images of police officers under duress during the  student protests in late 2010[4].

The financial implications of G4S Olympics failure have been severe as the company ”has seen more than 400 million wiped of its market value since the debacle”[5]. Standard and poor’s has indicated that it may cut down G4S credit rating in light of the company’s major ‘underperformance’[6]. However the fiasco has not affected the ability of the company to win contracts as G4S has managed to seal a deal worth “72 million” to secure the British embassy in Kabul[7] .

While G4S may be able to secure deals abroad, it can forget any government contracts, especially roles belonging to the police as plans that were once approved by three regional police authorities that outsourced job roles to G4S are now ”under review”[8] . The main point of concern by ‘chief constables’ was that G4S was not capable of the “effective and efficient delivery of organisational support services”[9].

In sum, G4S found itself on the world stage and dropped the ball for all to see, however this will have little effect on its existing work abroad but it can forget winning any contracts from the government due to the major retreat from outsourcing by several police authorities. This could be a real fillip for the Labour Party as the conservative continue to alienate the police force, giving some room for Labour to win back law and order voters they lost in 2010.

---

[1] A. Topping, 2012,  G4S Olympic Scandal: Ed Miliband calls for rethink of police outsourcing,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jul/19/g4s-olympic-ed-miliband-police?newsfeed=true

[2] Ibid, Quoted by Topping

[3] A. Travis, 2012, Theresa May heckled and jeered during police conference speech, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/16/theresa-may-heckled-police-conference

[4] A. Travis, 2011 police greet Theresa may speech with complete silence, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/18/police-greet-theresa-may-speech-silence?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

[5] F. Attewill, 2012, Police Taken Off To Cover G4S Olympic Staff Shortfall, http://www.metro.co.uk/olympics/905360-police-taken-off-beat-to-cover-g4s-olympic-staff-shortfall

[6] A. Monaghan, 2012, Olympics debacle may cut G4S  credit rating, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/9416528/Olympics-debacle-may-cut-G4Ss-credit-rating.html

[7] Morning Star, 2012, G4S extends Kabul contract for £72 m,  http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/122589

[8] BBC News, 2012, G4S police outsource plans ‘concern chief constables,

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18984972

[9] Ibid, quoted by BBC News

(Opinion) weak coalition now subject multiple union strikes

While there is very rarely an opportune time in politics to fight a war, to pick fights with key sections of the public sector when your opponents have a solid ten point lead over you in the polls, suffer from a awkward double whammy of suspicion and apathy towards most of your policy initiatives, and are at the center of what is sure to be the most infamous political scandal of the decade, is a very unwise strategy indeed.

The latest group preparing to strike in light of the coalition government targeting their pensions is doctors and GPs, following the police and teachers as the coalition looks set to to be the most unpopular government since the conservative rule post thatcher. With the coalition economic plan based on austerity rather than growth, this has entailed major cuts in the public sector, meaning cuts in pay for workers in the public sector.

the coalition government strategy to justify their position with regard to making large cuts to the public sector is to stress their cost to the taxpayer citing their wage packet in comparison to the private sector, where they know private workers pensions are nothing compared to the public sector, but, the government will never explore why such a deficit exists. Unions in  the private for the most part never survived the purge of the thatcher government that vowed and largely succeeded in breaking the unions thus weakening their bargaining power at the negotiation table.

this policy of weakening unions was largely continued by labor as the labor leadership sought to distance the party from its past, of which the unions are a large part of. Now unions in the private sector, totally defanged,   are now just harmonizer of unpopular company policy as they represent very few workers and have no bargaining power due to a competitive labor market and advancements in the labor process. 

Unions now only have power in the public sector, which makes for a large percentage of their members. workers in this sector are not as disposable but still suffer to large cuts in budgets allocated by the government of the day

however, with a weak coalition government languishing in the polls, Unions see this moment as their chance to put pressure on this government to with a history of backing down major policy initiatives after little pressure from opposing groups. The coalition have no option but wait for unions to come to the table and talk about revisions to their pension cuts proposal

In sum, this government that has made enemies of friends such as the police will show up in the next election as this government has lived up to every stereotype that kept them in the wilderness for more than a decade.